Poll: majority of Catholics who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage, women's ordination [CWN]

[Lapey]

I don’t see how a psychological exam could show someone was gay.

Never been through one, have you. At least not one designed for entry into formation. I have and so has my son. I respectfully say you are wrong.

 

[SMGS127]

Never been through one, have you. At least not one designed for entry into formation. I have and so has my son. I respectfully say you are wrong.

I’ve been through several (well, not for formation, but many psych exams for various reasons). Every single time, the exam has come back with an “unable to tell” result on my psyche, and definitely no “lesbian” result [note, I don’t wish to cause scandal; I’m a celibate lesbian].

 

[Tigg]

Well this puts me in an odd spot then, because I agree with you, but I disagree with One Point. I definitely think same-sex attractions are a cross to bear, but I highly disagree that those with SSA should seek to have such attractions removed before even contemplating becoming religious. Changing an immutable trait would almost require a miracle, and to hope for something that may not happen and refuse to accept a vocational call until said miracle occurs, when you could instead learn to live with the attractions but reject them for Christ while answering His call, seems foolish to me. Being gay and being religious are not mutually exclusive terms, if one has their priorities straight.

I would think that even for a chaste homosexual, the moral disorder is so fundamental to their human nature (isn’t that what homosexuals freely admit?) that it would be nearly impossible for the candidate to meet this qualification as contained in the Vat doc:

** “Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and by an authentic pastoral charity”**

(Note the term, whole person which would include his homosexuality, disordered as it is.) Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal qualifiers.

***“The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women………

“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”***

Without a properly ordered sexuality how is it fair to expect these men to spiritually advise married couples or those struggling with sexual sins? Since their orientation is in conflict with a whole and integrated personhood as defined by natural law, and in and of itself would oppose God’s plan, how exactly could this work, albeit they were sincere, wouldn’t they be constantly battling against their very “nature?”

In addition, our faith adheres to both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture and the Church has never sanctioned homosexuals for priesthood.

Maybe Lapey can help me here, but the candidate is not the only one to discern his vocation. As it states:

“He [the candidate] must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the Bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests.”

In humility and obedience, wanting to be a priest is not enough. Sometimes others can see things we cannot, and most importantly, our desires for ourselves are often times radically different from God’s design. Just ask the Virgin who originally never dreamed she would be the Theotokus.

 

[silver2soul]

Those polls could have been filled out by other affiliates not of the true church of JESUS CHRIST. No Christian would represent any immorality and say it’s acceptable. This is the deceiving spirits of the enemy at work.

Through out the many years of my attendance and participation of mass at various locations I have learned that many of these places have deceiving spirits in them. Entire congregations seemingly held in error; ones of unlove, strife, pride, anger, immodesty, and idolatry. A believer always hopes for sanctuary, and a loving congregation of parishioner’s as a whole inside each place of gathering. I have found that through experience this isn’t the case. This doesn’t mean we abandon it, it just means we need to understand the struggle we have with *powers *and principalities.

It is in error to support immorality and as true believers in JESUS the son of GOD we must adopt a stance against immorality and to hold our faith in a manner that is befitting JESUS CHRIST.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST forever>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[MJE]

I think it would be interesting to know these people’s definition of both marriage and the Catholic Church.
This would be revealing.

 

[SMGS127]

I would think that even for a chaste homosexual, the moral disorder is so fundamental to their human nature (isn’t that what homosexuals freely admit?) that it would be nearly impossible for the candidate to meet this qualification as contained in the Vat doc:

** “Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his whole person to the Church and by an authentic pastoral charity”**

(Note the term, whole person which would include his homosexuality, disordered as it is.) Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not equal qualifiers.

Being attracted to people of the same sex is no more fundamental to the human nature of a person than an attraction to members of the opposite sex. It certainly aids in the pursuit of relationships, and, for some, provides an unbearably high libido that traps them, but otherwise is merely a trait like blue eyes. Would you say that having blue eyes is “fundamental to [a blue-eyed person’s] human nature?” Admitting that you have a trait, doing nothing else with it, and never having it affect your life should clearly reflect the maturity you quote below this.

***“The candidate to the ordained ministry, therefore, must reach affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate correctly to both men and women………

“Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”***

Without a properly ordered sexuality how is it fair to expect these men to spiritually advise married couples or those struggling with sexual sins? Since their orientation is in conflict with a whole and integrated personhood as defined by natural law, and in and of itself would oppose God’s plan, how exactly could this work, albeit they were sincere, wouldn’t they be constantly battling against their very “nature?”

Again, I believe they are referring to tendencies of homosexual behavior. A gay priest who has no difficulty abstaining from any form of homosexual relationship would have no worldly hindrance to their spiritual pursuits or obligations. And it’s actually fairly easy for a gay person to aid in the formation of heterosexual marriages; I am attracted to women, yet aid both my straight male and female friends in their relationships. You don’t need to have a heterosexual inclination to understand how relationships or marriages work. I would argue that your argument works better to argue that asexual men shouldn’t be priests.

In addition, our faith adheres to both Apostolic Tradition and Scripture and the Church has never sanctioned homosexuals for priesthood.

This is incorrect. It has never sanctioned actively gay men for priesthood, and for good reason. There have been no rules against celibate gay men.

Maybe Lapey can help me here, but the candidate is not the only one to discern his vocation. As it states:

“He [the candidate] must offer himself trustingly to the discernment of the Church, of the Bishop who calls him to orders, of the rector of the seminary, of his spiritual director and of the other seminary educators to whom the Bishop or major superior has entrusted the task of forming future priests.”

In humility and obedience, wanting to be a priest is not enough. Sometimes others can see things we cannot, and most importantly, our desires for ourselves are often times radically different from God’s design. Just ask the Virgin who originally never dreamed she would be the Theotokus.

That’s very true, but I don’t believe a bishop would keep a man from becoming a deacon or priest merely because he had an immutable attraction to men that he never acts on and that provides no hindrance to his spiritual life.

 

[Elizabeth502]

For a gay man to get into seminary right now, at least the one I am familiar with, he would have to be very good at lying. He would have to be the type of person we would not want as a priest in the first place. The psychological exam given is quite comprehensive and thorough.

Indeed. I know someone who is in charge of that process in a seminary. In confidential examination, candidates are required to be frank about their sexuality, and questions are designed to identify those who (a) have not integrated their sexuality healthfully within their concept of self, and/or, (b) provide deceptive or ambiguous answers, and/or (c) failed to resolve any internal ambiguity about their sexuality, and/or (d) are not inclined toward discipline when it comes to sexual acting out.

Naturally, a particularly randy heterosexual who seems immature in this department (incapable of self-control) would also be inappropriate.

The measurement, as it has been explained to me, is the level of attachment to sexual interest and pursuit, as well as the relationship between personal identity and sexuality.

Second, any prejudice toward one’s own sex is directly in conflict with the nature of celibacy, which has as its goal universal and “disinterested” charity. Even someone who is chaste but has an orientation of consistent preference would be unsuitable, as an all-male residential environment would intensify such “exclusive” tendencies. The priesthood is not a club for either overt attraction or covert attraction (replacing quasi-erotic attraction for the physical variety).

It is very important to understand that the Church is speaking about…those who have several serious impairments:

1. Actively gay
2. Embrace or support the gay lifestyle/culture
3. Deep seated homosexual tendencies (this means more than same-sex attractions. This is a person who identifies himself or herself as gay). When this becomes your identity, then there is a very serious problem here. Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as heterosexuals. They identify themselves as males and females. A person with same-sex attraction must be able to see himself as a whole person, not identify himself by his sexual attraction. Unless he can see himself as a whole person, he cannot relate to members of both genders in a healthy and appropriate way.
4. Those who struggle to remain chaste. If this is a struggle for the individual, he or she is not a good candidate for either the priesthood or the religious life. Everyone struggles with temptations. The Church is not saying that a priest or religious must be someone who never struggles with temptations. That would be unrealistic. The Church is speaking about the person for whom sexual temptation are a cross.

As to the publicity of the attraction there is something to be considered here. If one is celibate and comfortable in one’s celibate state, why should one’s sexual feelings come out into the public forum? Whethere you have same-sex attraction or opposite-sex attractions, this is not a topic for public discussion.

…also…someone who had come out earlier in life…is disqualified. The very act of coming out is a statement that says to the world that I embrace my sexual attractions, am proud of it, and I don’t care what the world thinks. Otherwise, the person would have exercised some discretion. The act of coming out reveals a deep seated homosexual orientation as well as some difficulties with discretion. Such a person is not a good candidate for either priesthood or religious life…the person has identified himself according to his sexual attractions, rather than as a whole man or whole woman. That’s the whole problem with the gay movement. When you identify yourself as gay, you’re making a public display of your sexuality as if that were the defining trait in your humanity and you’re throwing off the balance in your life, because you’re much more than just a sexual being. This is what the Church calls “deep seated”. It becomes an identity, rather than a sexual attraction.

…Even in the guidelines that the Church provides for religious orders and diocesan seminaries, she’s very careful to point out that novice masters for religious and formators of seminarians must really watch what happens in the day to day life in community…The same struggles with sexuality can be found in heterosexuals. What a formator is looking at is whether there is a struggle. If there is, then the person is not suited for this life or for the priesthood.

 

[SMGS127]

Indeed. I know someone who is in charge of that process in a seminary. In confidential examination, candidates are required to be frank about their sexuality, and questions are designed to identify those who (a) have not integrated their sexuality healthfully within their concept of self, and/or, (b) provide deceptive or ambiguous answers, and/or (c) failed to resolve any internal ambiguity about their sexuality, and/or (d) are not inclined toward discipline when it comes to sexual acting out.

Naturally, a particularly randy heterosexual who seems immature in this department (incapable of self-control) would also be inappropriate.

The measurement, as it has been explained to me, is the level of attachment to sexual interest and pursuit, as well as the relationship between personal identity and sexuality.

Would not a gay man who had no worldly attachment to his sexuality fit this requirement?

Second, any prejudice toward one’s own sex is directly in conflict with the nature of celibacy, which has as its goal universal and “disinterested” charity. Even someone who is chaste but has an orientation of consistent preference would be unsuitable, as an all-male residential environment would intensify such “exclusive” tendencies. The priesthood is not a club for either overt attraction or covert attraction (replacing quasi-erotic attraction for the physical variety).

Are you telling me that if you lived with a group of men you were working with, you would feel an intensification of your sexuality and need to sleep with them? I’m going to guess not, so why apply that argument to gay men? I’ve been in an extremely high amount of situations where I could, under your argument, be theoretically “tempting” myself being around other women (locker rooms, sleepovers, dorm halls/double rooms, etc.), but it’s never like that. Even when I was actively gay, I never saw these situations as opportunities or even “temptations.” They were just routine occurrences that had about as much meaning to me as I’d imagine they would to any straight girl .

Edit: I also don’t understand the idea of “gay” being an attachment. If people ask me if I’m lesbian, I say “yes but celibate.” If someone asks a straight person if they’re straight, should they answer “i don’t want to have worldly attachments to a sexuality?” No, they say they’re straight! Saying I’m lesbian means almost no more to me than saying I have blue eyes, as I referenced earlier, and the only bit it matters more is that I can identify with those who struggle with SSA to help bring them to the Church.

 

[shelby_sun]

OK some have seen me do this on other threads, but I would again like to thank Bro. for his wisdom and insight and ask others to read all his post when possible. They are very educational and clear on what the Church truly teaches. Remember that as a religious he would understand much better than us lay people what the Church is saying. I find him to be extremely knowledgeable about all aspects of our Church not just the ones we as individuals want to focus on or believe. We are all lucky he takes the time to explain things on the forum!

 

[SaintAugustine]

You wouldn’t necessarily know he was gay…unless he used to be actively gay, converted, and then wanted to be ordained, and had little risk of ever falling back into a male relationship. In which case he wouldn’t have “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” but still be gay. Also you can be gay without anyone knowing. So yes, gay priests are allowed in the Church currently.

Ah, so you don’t know if there are any gay priests, other than ones who used to be actively gay (which means they shouldn’t be priests, unless their same sex attraction was a “transitory” problem and therefore, they aren’t gay), because you wouldn’t know if a priest was gay “without anyone knowing.”

No, gay men are not allowed to become priests in the Church, unless they successfully lie during formation. Are you in favor of ordaining liars into the priesthood?

 

[SMGS127]

Ah, so you don’t know if there are any gay priests, other than ones who used to be actively gay (which means they shouldn’t be priests, unless their same sex attraction was a “transitory” problem and therefore, they aren’t gay), because you wouldn’t know if a priest was gay “without anyone knowing.”

No, gay men are not allowed to become priests in the Church, unless they successfully lie during formation. Are you in favor of ordaining liars into the priesthood?

Gay men can, even if they are honest, become priests. As long as they aren’t attached to the identity and support Church teaching, there is no hindrance.

So no, I don’t support liars being priests, but I do support celibate gay men who wish to become priests in their endeavors and I’m glad the Church doesn’t automatically exclude them!

And you completely missed my point of a man who used to be gay, converted to the Church, made a vow to be celibate as a result, and later decided to pursue a vocation. There’d be semi-public knowledge of his SSA from his past before conversion, but there would be no attachment whatsoever to his gay orientation.

In short, it’s nowhere near as black and white as you want it to be.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Moreover, some attitudes presented here and similar threads are disconnected from the catholic vision of man and his destiny and grace in my view. Disordered tendencies are to be overcome and set aright, not just embraced as if they were ok just because “they are not a sin”. I challenge you to read on the topics of sin, fault and grace. It is not enough for a christian that you do not commit a mortal sin. That is mediocrity. One starts from struggling against mortal sin as a rule because that is usually where the lord finds us. But he graduates to fighting venial sin, to uprooting faults (deep-seated tendencies towards sin), and so on till sanctity. The aim is wholeness and sanctity, the means is grace which is God himself. It is a narrow view of Christianity to regard the flesh and its sinful tendencies as OK as long as one does not commit a sin. That’s no different than regarding illness as OK as long as it doesn’t kill you. Is greed OK as long as we don’t steal? One does not become a saint by treating his faults and dis-ordered incliniations towards sin as if they were neutral. But if the aim of a priest or lay catholic is not to set on that road of sanctity, then what is? And if that is his aim, then why should he treat his illness (something that pulls him towards sin) as if it were not an illness that grace should heal? It’s because that priest or lay person, like those Catholics in the poll, have been educated by the faux wisdom of the world that embraces flesh as good in itself and impossible to change. We should approach disorders of the flesh the same way Christ and apostles advice in the bible and saints practice and church teaches. We dont think they are neutral, they need healing. They are not who we are, they are a distortion of our nature and grace is to make us whole like God intended from the beginning.

Once in a while, amidst many attempts to counsel and correct the problem with some Catholic brothers and sisters who already bought and made themselves comfortable with the current culture’s version of truth, as if culture determines what is true, an arrow hits the bull’s eye. Your post achieved this.

Thank you.

ISoG
,

 

[SaintAugustine]

Gay men can, even if they are honest, become priests. As long as they aren’t attached to the identity and support Church teaching, there is no hindrance.

So no, I don’t support liars being priests, but I do support celibate gay men who wish to become priests in their endeavors and I’m glad the Church doesn’t automatically exclude them!

And you completely missed my point of a man who used to be gay, converted to the Church, made a vow to be celibate as a result, and later decided to pursue a vocation. There’d be semi-public knowledge of his SSA from his past before conversion, but there would be no attachment whatsoever to his gay orientation.

In short, it’s nowhere near as black and white as you want it to be.

Well, with all due respect, your opinion or argument doesn’t match that of people who have actually been through priestly formation, or the spokesman from a seminary who explained the way homosexuality is dealt with in formation. You can certainly continue to believe what you want, but it doesn’t match reality.

 

[Darryl1958]

Pope Benedict changed the rules on entrance into the priesthood due to the sex abuse scandal,

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Not surprising. A lot of people have many positive interactions with kind and loving gay friends, co-workers, relatives. These temper their opinions. It’s difficult to be too hard hearted when it’s personal like that.

Country Gal I am praying for you in particular that one day you will sign yourself Catholic and not add (fallen away) you have been given the faith like Esau but are selling your birthright like Esau did to Jacob.

 

[SMGS127]

Pope Benedict changed the rules on entrance into the priesthood due to the sex abuse scandal,

The sex abuse scandal had nothing to do with gay men.

 

[JimG]

The sex abuse scandal had nothing to do with gay men.

And yet it seems to have been mostly (80% or more of cases) homosexual predation of older men on adolescent boys.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Would not a gay man who had no worldly attachment to his sexuality fit this requirement?

Again, it’s the professionals who are forming and questioning and observing men in seminaries and applicants for seminaries who are qualified to judge the level of attachment and the terms of “identity.” I’m obviously not in a formation position.

Are you telling me that if you lived with a group of men you were working with, you would feel an intensification of your sexuality and need to sleep with them? I’m going to guess not, so why apply that argument to gay men? I’ve been in an extremely high amount of situations where I could, under your argument, be theoretically “tempting” myself being around other women (locker rooms, sleepovers, dorm halls/double rooms, etc.), but it’s never like that. Even when I was actively gay, I never saw these situations as opportunities or even “temptations.” They were just routine occurrences that had about as much meaning to me as I’d imagine they would to any straight girl .

I don’t know why you’re addressing me, obviously a female, as “you,” in a context featuring an all-male environment, so I feel no need to respond to your question.

I’m merely reporting the fact that during the 1980’s and 1990’s, for example, many seminaries in this country developed into “clubs” which were attractive to men who were “acting out” – either explicitly or with a level of interest in ‘a homosexual culture’ which featured quasi-romantic alliances coming very close to physical expression, as well as a fixation on All Things Gay. (For example, I myself heard public conversations among such men in seminary, and those applying for seminary, who were asking each other if they “were going to participate in [the local] Gay Pride parade,” etc. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.) What Pope Benedict did is to issue a statement of policy designed to discourage just such candidates as utterly unsuitable and lacking in a genuine vocation.

 

[SMGS127]

I don’t know why you’re addressing me, obviously a female, as “you,” in a context featuring an all-male environment, so I feel no need to respond to your question.

The reason I asked was to show that you, as a mature, adult, straight female, would feel no uncontrollable impulse to sleep with a man if you were in an all-male environment besides yourself. So why do you extrapolate this to gay men and come to the reverse conclusion? I also gave my own example as a lesbian, showing that I did not show such an uncontrollable urge when put in day-to-day situations with other women, nor did they even mean anything more to me than they did to straight girls.

I’m merely reporting the fact that during the 1980’s and 1990’s, for example, many seminaries in this country developed into “clubs” which were attractive to men who were “acting out” – either explicitly or with a level of interest in ‘a homosexual culture’ which featured quasi-romantic alliances coming very close to physical expression, as well as a fixation on All Things Gay. (For example, I myself heard public conversations among such men in seminary, and those applying for seminary, who were asking each other if they “were going to participate in [the local] Gay Pride parade,” etc. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.) What Pope Benedict did is to issue a statement of policy designed to discourage just that.

That’s really odd, and even if true, that wouldn’t be a thing today.

And yet it seems to have been mostly (80% or more of cases) homosexual predation of older men on adolescent boys.

That’s not homosexual. It’s called hebephilia, and hebephilic gender preference has nothing to do with one’s personal sexual orientation. The only reason people make this claim is to argue that gays somehow commit pedophilic/hebephilic crimes at a higher rate by arguing genders of victims, even though there is no linkage between gender of victim and sexual orientation. There are many straight, married men who molest young boys.

Again, hebephilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Same with pedophilia.

 

[JimG]

That’s really odd, and even if true, that wouldn’t be a thing today.

The reason it’s not a thing today is precisely because the seminaries and seminarian screening were reformed to prevent it. If one looks at the cases of priestly sex abuse of children, one will find that many of the cases come from precisely those seminaries and those seminary class years where such problems were prevalent.

That’s not homosexual. It’s called hebephilia, and hebephilic gender preference has nothing to do with one’s personal sexual orientation. The only reason people make this claim is to argue that gays somehow commit pedophilic/hebephilic crimes at a higher rate by arguing genders of victims, even though there is no linkage between gender of victim and sexual orientation. There are many straight, married men who molest young boys.

Again, hebephilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Same with pedophilia.

That seems like a stretch to me. When the vast majority of cases of abuse essentially consist of pederasty of boys, it would seem that sexual preference is indicated. I have seen it argued that the abusers in question simply had more access to boys, but that’s also a stretch. They had access to both genders, and chose boys.